I'm thinking of tightening up in these kinds of spots (pf)

[Leader]

raiser is a TAG
CC'er is unknown

Full Tilt Poker
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $5/$10
6 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
<font color="#cc0000">UTG raises</font>, 3 folds, SB calls, Hero...

limper is loose passive
raiser is unknown
Poker Stars
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $5/$10
6 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, CO folds, <font color="#cc0000">Button raises</font>, SB folds, Hero...

I'm pretty loose in these spots. I'll often call with crap suited cards in these type spots for example, but I'm thinking of letting go of some of this easily dominated off suit stuff more easily. Thoughts?

[AdamL]

Just due to RIO?

What's your new range?

[AdamL]

I like a fold in the K9 one btw. I don't know if it's correct though.

[jba]

i always always drop #2, rarely #1

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Just due to RIO?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah basically. I hate making a pair with these type hands because you get very little when you have the best of it. You get killed when it's hand over hand, and sometimes you get bluffed off your hand by aggressive players. The last is especially an issue for me because I tend to avoid wa/wb oop.

[ QUOTE ]
What's your new range?

[/ QUOTE ]

For off suit cards: A9+,KT+,QJ Too tight?

[AdamL]

Oh, I wouldn't say too tight. I think the qualititative aspects of various hands is the important thing, not just the equities distributions.

Feel free to share your thoughts on it too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Dendrite]

Check your pokertracker results for these types of hands (use filters liberally) and see how close you are to -(0.50) bb. Otherwise you will just get a handfull of

1.) "I fold"
2.) "I call"
3.) "You're dominated"
4.) "Implied odds"

etc etc, with no real conclusion made.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Check your pokertracker results for these types of hands (use filters liberally) and see how close you are to -(0.50) bb. Otherwise you will just get a handfull of

1.) "I fold"
2.) "I call"
3.) "You're dominated"
4.) "Implied odds"

etc etc, with no real conclusion made.

[/ QUOTE ]

despite what people say you can discuss pf play and make logical arguments about whether a hand is playable or not. Checking PT is pretty useless unless you've played about 4 millions hands for something like this.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Check your pokertracker results for these types of hands

[/ QUOTE ]

how many hands do you think you need in your db to have a good sample size for K9o vs a raise and a caller in the big blind? say you have 1000000 hand db, how skewed do you think this sample might be by having maniacs or tight passives in your game at the time??

[Dendrite]

how are you gonna model what happens after the flop? we know how often you flop a pair. now many BBs are you going to make when you flop a pair? there's no way to calculate it. you can't use preflop pot odds - what are you getting pot odds on?

if you wanna know if a hand is gonna be profitable, you have to be able to estimate how much money you will make/lose after the flop in these situations. and since it's impossible to do, we just have to look at empirical data. all these discussions always degenerate into relative arguments - "I'd rather call with XX than YY" - but never absolute arguments - "JJ will make me -.55 bb/h if I call, KK will make me -.45 bb/h if I call".

you can help alleviating sample size issues by grouping together similiar hands which will give you a larger sample. i still maintain that empirical analysis is more useful than theoretical analysis here just because our theoretical basis for determining post flop wins/losses against our opponents is almost nonexistant.